If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wow, liberals sure get angry and personal when you criticize Justin Trudeau.

No, I get upset when I'm repeatedly lied to, even after I've indicated to the untruthful party that their deceit is uncovered.

You're a pro at getting your characterizations wrong, which is understandable when you realize you're an bigot devoid of empathy who can only project his own twisted mindset onto others because it's literally all you know. It's a common trait with you alt-righty pseudoconservatives, but that doesn't make it any less grating.

Sadder & sadder you get.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Absolutely. No, I think that's, um, gives me an opportunity to talk about first of all, the fact that one of the reasons Canada is successful as a country is because we have been open to people fleeing persecution, fleeing war zones, looking for [a] better life for themselves and their kids. That's been the story of this country from the time the first European settlers came to be received by indigenous people.

People were fleeing conflict, poverty, difficult situations, and came to Canada to build a better life for themselves, and successive waves of people have in every different time, [and] every different wave.

And when we welcomed in waves of refugees – weather it was the Ismaili refugees in the early seventies; whether it was the Vietnamese boat people in the early eighties; whether it was people fleeing the devastation of the second world war from southern Europe in the fifties and sixties – the Italian communities, the Greek communities, the Portuguese communities, and others – our country is so much the better for it. And there is a sense at one point that, okay, maybe now that's enough. Maybe we have just about all the diversity we can handle and we shouldn't have anymore.

Well, I can tell you, when Italian families settled in Montreal in the post-war years, they faced terrible discrimination and people who pushed back at them and said no, no, no, you don't belong here, you don't speak English or French. Every wave of immigration has faced pushback because of how they dressed, or how they sounded, or what their belief was, what their religion was. And every wave of immigration has led to Canada being a better, stronger, more resilient, richer country. And that, I know, is not changing.

When we welcomed the 40,000 Syrian refugees fleeing war-torn areas, looking for a better life, it wasn't my idea; it wasn't my choice to do that. I didn't bring them over. Canadians brought them over. People opened up their homes; cities like Edmonton showed themselves to be tremendously generous; provinces stepped up; community groups, church groups stepped up. There was a welcoming of people because there was a recognition that yes, these people were fleeing ISIS, trying to get away from terrorism, trying to build a better life for their kids, and that is the story of this country.

Obviously, obviously, as an open and safe country, we have to make sure that we are taking security very seriously, and the security checks that were gone through before people came here, the way they are followed up on if necessary in certain cases, the way we ensure that we are keeping our communities safe happens not through, you know, building walls or thickening borders, metaphorically, it happens through engaging and giving people pathways to success; it comes through integration and language training and skills training; it comes through our wonderful high schools and public education that allows for kids of all different backgrounds to learn from each other, to grow together, and to work together to build stronger communities. That has been the story of Canada, and it is not one that is in contrast with creating a safer community for your daughter, for our neighbors, for anyone.

The safety actually comes through having communities that are resilient and diverse, and that talk to each other and understand each other and look out for each other and are welcoming towards each other. That is how you build a stronger, more successful society. And that is something that I know because I have seen it generation after generation all across Canada.

My dad had rocks thrown at him & his family was shunned in rural Saskatchewan for being German & therefore an un-Canadian enemy in the 1950s. I don't think drawing parallels between the various waves of immigrants is offside whatsoever. My dad's family was as close to the 3rd Reich as a random Syrian family would be to ISIS but the hatred was & is just as real & unjustified now as it was in the 50s when my dad was pelted.

Interesting that you're pulling the Germany card in this. My family suffered the same suspicion, the same rocks thrown, the same punches thrown, and due to being German 50's immigrants. But heres a difference in perception. Growing up here in the 60's I accepted, my bro accepted, my mom accepted that there would be hatred and contempt here. It was understood that Germans would be hated here and understood why. This even being two decades after the war. We didn't invoke Germanophobia or Naziphobia or elect individuals or govts that would further such bills in parliament. The only person that was resolute in not denouncing his past (as a German soldier) was my father. Of course this caused friction even within our family. But he didn't do this publicly or run around accusing people of germanophobia. He was resigned to its existence as well.

Now heres the thing. To me the HATING of german people here was to be expected, and was imo a reasonable response to atrocity caused by Germany. We did not look at it as unreasonable. Nor did Canada allow German immigration again until several years AFTER the war.

In the case of Extremist Islamic factions that war is STILL being fought and STILL going on. Along with islamic individuals in this country, that support Islam, and that further members bills in parliament supporting Islamic secularism. Nor are they consistently denouncing Radical Islam. No, instead the response is to label Canadians Islamophobic. Instead of you know, just considering that there is egregious concern with Radical Islam and Secular extremist Islam invading the country and that there are reasons for that concern.

I think maybe a difference is that Germans didn't take Nazism into this country and attempt to keep furthering it here. Also that in Germany its a crime to deny such things as the Holocaust. In the case of Germany, and Germans we're talking about a nation and society that has renounced all ties with the evil faction.

We're a non secular Nation in Canada at this point. We've renounced Catholicism, we've renounced Christianity because we see the evils inherent in religion and secular division. So why not Renounce Islam?

My own opinion is theres no place for Religion and secular politics in this country, or in the world or its future. It only cause division and wars. So renounce it all.

ps I'm not saying you are wrong at all, and I'm not saying that the experience isn't confusing for me and that perhaps I don't comprehend the issues as perhaps I should. I'm just responding.

Last edited by Replacement; 09-02-2018 at 03:37 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Interesting that your pulling the Germany card in this. My family suffered the same suspicion, the same rocks thrown, the same punches thrown, and due to being German 50's immigrants. But heres a difference in perception. Growing up here in the 60's I accepted, my bro accepted, my mom accepted that there would be hatred and contempt here. It was understood that Germans would be hated here and understood why.

Relating a personal anecdote is hardly "playing a card", but your projection speaks volumes about where you're coming from. My dad was 12 when he had his head split open, so apologies if he didn't have the nuanced understanding of geopolitics that you & your family did a decade later. He was just a kid who got bullied & assaulted because of where he came from. And no amount of understanding would have made that assault justified or reasonable.

Originally Posted by Replacement

Now heres the thing. To me the HATING of german people here was to be expected, and was imo a reasonable response to atrocity caused by Germany. We did not look at it as unreasonable. Nor did Canada allow German immigration again until several years AFTER the war.

You're deplorable if you think that my dad should have expected to be assaulted despite being a baby during the conflict & spending most of his first year in a Russian prison camp. Saying that bigotry & hatred against individuals can somehow justified by the actions of a state is about the most revolting thing you've said in a history dotted with truly deplorable posts. Justifying racism? Gross, even for you.

Originally Posted by Replacement

In the case of Extremist Islamic factions that war is STILL being fought and STILL going on. Nor are those individuals in this country, that support Islam, and that further members bills in parliament denouncing Radical Islam. No, instead the response is to label Canadians Islamophobic. Instead of you know, just having egregious concern with Radical Islam and Secular extremist Islam invading the country.

I find it hilarious that you're decrying being called Islamophobic while spewing it yourself the next sentence. Well, hilarious & gross. Mostly gross. Actually, just gross.

Originally Posted by Replacement

We're a non secular Nation in Canada at this point. We've renounced Catholicism, we've renounced Christianity because we see the evils inherent in religion and secular division.

Someone's not read the Constitution...

Originally Posted by Replacement

My own opinion is theres no place for Religion and secular politics in this country, or in the world or its future. It only cause division and wars. So renounce it all.

Yeah, clearly you need to read the Charter too.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

^No, as always you don't get it, nobody here expected you would. Go on hating and denouncing virtually everbody that disagrees with your sad and pathetic contributions here.

Your family had a hateful experience and so you hate everybody ever since and respond with contempt to everybody. Its a bit more clear now. I kind of always wondered why you had such seeming pathological contempt for everybody.

That you support Islamic rhetoric in this country is just ironic. Almost impossible to fathom.

Last edited by Replacement; 09-02-2018 at 03:44 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

No, as always you don't get it, nobody here expected you would. Go on hating and denouncing virtually everbody that disagrees with your sad and pathetic contributions here.

Oh I get it just fine. You're a terrible person with abhorrent beliefs & a stunning lack of personal accountability, wrapped up in a thick coat of condescending arrogance & you confirm that in spades every time you get onto your soapbox & attempt to dictate your own twisted perspective as the only valid one for everyone, on any topic.

Originally Posted by Replacement

Your family had a hateful experience and so you hate everybody since and respond with contempt to everybody.

No, my dad got hit in the head by racist bigots in Saskatchewan & the only reason I brought it up is to show xenophobia & bigotry aren't a recent thing, just like JT did. But keep on projecting or attempting to intuit my mindset when you're so completely wrong about what you think you know about me I feel a little bad about laughing at you, like I'm mocking a special needs kid.

Originally Posted by Replacement

Its a bit more clear now. I kind of always wondered why you had such seeming pathological contempt for everybody.

Well, just from your reactions here everybody is terrible, reprehensible, bigoted etc. Its your form of saying hello while being in contempt of everybody. I would look into that but you probably have already.

Yes I'm just stating stuff to make your head explode.

have a good weekend,

cheers

Last edited by Replacement; 09-02-2018 at 03:52 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

There's a lot of racists, ignoramuses & bigots in this thread & province, many of which have become emboldened to spew their rhetoric. I don't cotton to that whatsoever & will keep on shining a light on you cockroaches whenever I find you.I'm far more congenial to people who either aren't deplorable or keep it under their hat, so really you're the one in control here. Don't wanna be called an arrogant bigot? Don't be one.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

There's a lot of racists, ignoramuses & bigots in this thread & province, many of which have become emboldened to spew their rhetoric. I don't cotton to that whatsoever & will keep on shining a light on you cockroaches whenever I find you.I'm far more congenial to people who either aren't deplorable or keep it under their hat, so really you're the one in control here. Don't wanna be called an arrogant bigot? Don't be one.

But when you shine your special omniscient spotlight everybody looks like a cockroach to you.

Who let all the riff raff into the room...

Kind of brownshirt of you.

You online evoke hate in a different way and just find pseudo intellectual rationalization for your hatred and contempt. If you're being honest with yourself, which you're still not..

Albeit you're not like this in real life. So I'm not sure why you do this online.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Absolutely. No, I think that's, um, gives me an opportunity to talk about first of all, the fact that one of the reasons Canada is successful as a country is because we have been open to people fleeing persecution, fleeing war zones, looking for [a] better life for themselves and their kids. That's been the story of this country from the time the first European settlers came to be received by indigenous people.

People were fleeing conflict, poverty, difficult situations, and came to Canada to build a better life for themselves, and successive waves of people have in every different time, [and] every different wave.

And when we welcomed in waves of refugees – weather it was the Ismaili refugees in the early seventies; whether it was the Vietnamese boat people in the early eighties; whether it was people fleeing the devastation of the second world war from southern Europe in the fifties and sixties – the Italian communities, the Greek communities, the Portuguese communities, and others – our country is so much the better for it. And there is a sense at one point that, okay, maybe now that's enough. Maybe we have just about all the diversity we can handle and we shouldn't have anymore.

Well, I can tell you, when Italian families settled in Montreal in the post-war years, they faced terrible discrimination and people who pushed back at them and said no, no, no, you don't belong here, you don't speak English or French. Every wave of immigration has faced pushback because of how they dressed, or how they sounded, or what their belief was, what their religion was. And every wave of immigration has led to Canada being a better, stronger, more resilient, richer country. And that, I know, is not changing.

When we welcomed the 40,000 Syrian refugees fleeing war-torn areas, looking for a better life, it wasn't my idea; it wasn't my choice to do that. I didn't bring them over. Canadians brought them over. People opened up their homes; cities like Edmonton showed themselves to be tremendously generous; provinces stepped up; community groups, church groups stepped up. There was a welcoming of people because there was a recognition that yes, these people were fleeing ISIS, trying to get away from terrorism, trying to build a better life for their kids, and that is the story of this country.

Obviously, obviously, as an open and safe country, we have to make sure that we are taking security very seriously, and the security checks that were gone through before people came here, the way they are followed up on if necessary in certain cases, the way we ensure that we are keeping our communities safe happens not through, you know, building walls or thickening borders, metaphorically, it happens through engaging and giving people pathways to success; it comes through integration and language training and skills training; it comes through our wonderful high schools and public education that allows for kids of all different backgrounds to learn from each other, to grow together, and to work together to build stronger communities. That has been the story of Canada, and it is not one that is in contrast with creating a safer community for your daughter, for our neighbors, for anyone.

The safety actually comes through having communities that are resilient and diverse, and that talk to each other and understand each other and look out for each other and are welcoming towards each other. That is how you build a stronger, more successful society. And that is something that I know because I have seen it generation after generation all across Canada.

My dad had rocks thrown at him & his family was shunned in rural Saskatchewan for being German & therefore an un-Canadian enemy in the 1950s. I don't think drawing parallels between the various waves of immigrants is offside whatsoever. My dad's family was as close to the 3rd Reich as a random Syrian family would be to ISIS but the hatred was & is just as real & unjustified now as it was in the 50s when my dad was pelted.

Interesting that you're pulling the Germany card in this. My family suffered the same suspicion, the same rocks thrown, the same punches thrown, and due to being German 50's immigrants. But heres a difference in perception. Growing up here in the 60's I accepted, my bro accepted, my mom accepted that there would be hatred and contempt here. It was understood that Germans would be hated here and understood why. This even being two decades after the war. We didn't invoke Germanophobia or Naziphobia or elect individuals or govts that would further such bills in parliament. The only person that was resolute in not denouncing his past (as a German soldier) was my father. Of course this caused friction even within our family. But he didn't do this publicly or run around accusing people of germanophobia. He was resigned to its existence as well.

Now heres the thing. To me the HATING of german people here was to be expected, and was imo a reasonable response to atrocity caused by Germany. We did not look at it as unreasonable. Nor did Canada allow German immigration again until several years AFTER the war.

In the case of Extremist Islamic factions that war is STILL being fought and STILL going on. Along with islamic individuals in this country, that support Islam, and that further members bills in parliament supporting Islamic secularism. Nor are they consistently denouncing Radical Islam. No, instead the response is to label Canadians Islamophobic. Instead of you know, just considering that there is egregious concern with Radical Islam and Secular extremist Islam invading the country and that there are reasons for that concern.

I think maybe a difference is that Germans didn't take Nazism into this country and attempt to keep furthering it here. Also that in Germany its a crime to deny such things as the Holocaust. In the case of Germany, and Germans we're talking about a nation and society that has renounced all ties with the evil faction.

We're a non secular Nation in Canada at this point. We've renounced Catholicism, we've renounced Christianity because we see the evils inherent in religion and secular division. So why not Renounce Islam?

My own opinion is theres no place for Religion and secular politics in this country, or in the world or its future. It only cause division and wars. So renounce it all.

ps I'm not saying you are wrong at all, and I'm not saying that the experience isn't confusing for me and that perhaps I don't comprehend the issues as perhaps I should. I'm just responding.

The question asked of Trudeau was about ideologies. Of course, some refugees will fall somewhere along the spectrum of possibilities towards and away from the fear of the ‘radical’ or fundamental beliefs. It could have been asked of people fleeing a war torn communist country too. Would immigration including people holding communist-socialist beliefs be a threat to our democratic system? Some ideologies (religious, political, etc.) don’t exactly embrace democracy along with the protection of various beliefs especially minority beliefs or minorities in any shape of form. Some ideologies are simply intolerant of others.

Anyway, it is a good question and Trudeau’s answer was long but rather limited in responding to the concern.

Imagine 100 years ago someone asking if diverse immigration might introduce beliefs hostile to the role of the monarchy in Canada. Say a Republican ideology that would wish to eliminate Canada’s King or Queen. Saying that past waves of immigration hadn’t threatened the role of the monarchy in Canada doesn’t address the question of introducing hostile ideologies that are counter to longstanding institutions, etc.

"I just want to know how your stance on ISIS is gonna help Canadians in any way. I need to know how you’re going to protect future Canadians like my young daughter, and, you know, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now when you’re letting people in with an ideology that just does not conform to what we’re doing here."

Gerald Butts ����
Gerald Butts ����
@gmbutts
The lesson to take from this joke being torqued by Infowars and other alt-right nazi friends of the Rebel is they're paying attention. Game on, #TeamTrudeau. “

Please see below. This elementary school teaching of basic math could sure help a lot of people including yourself. Please refresh yourself on the concepts, work to understand how it works in populations regarding thoughts, ideas, individuals and groups. Plus please try to understand that this is just a two dimensional representation of the idea. Considering the way people use labels these days, I don’t think their minds really enter the realm of the 3-dimensional world, but I’m hopeful.

Subset of a set
This lesson will explain what a subset of a set is. We will start with a definition

Whatever Butts comment is its disingenuous. I follow what you are saying above KC, but stating "torqued by infowars and other alt right Nazi friends" is poor form to begin with, deplorably actually, and in either instance is supposing an agenda. Instead of looking at what actually occurred and that Trudeaus exchange was just really stupid and pretty much defined how far he allows himself to swim in meaningless rhetoric.

The comment rung around the world (not in select factions either) because it was a moment that resonated with the perception of what Trudeau is about. Fairly vacant, pedantic, and playing pc terminology in the most innocuous, if not all instances.

But for Butt (heh) to godwin and to further mansplain this (when a fair amount of the people catcalling "peoplekind" are female) and to try to make it go away in this manner is probably not good PR. The assertion that people are paying attention, as if this has been positive attention, or that its favorable in any way for Trudeau is simply quite a stretch. Wait, its false. This was certainly not a good moment for Trudeau.

That said there are times where damage control is pretty hard if not untenable. When the world is laughing at you is one of those times. Trudeau attempted to feign later that he was just joking but most not believing that either.

The only valid recourse would be for Trudeau to back off of such identity politics, and nonstop pc nomenclature a bit but I doubt that occurs or that he even learns anything from this. What we've seen from Trudeau is it will embolden him to stubbornly do more of the same thing he's being critiqued for. He's diligent that way.

This man will soon enough be a curious footnote in history. A what were people thinking Prime Minister. I don't know that history will be too kind to him.

Last edited by Replacement; 10-02-2018 at 09:59 AM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

All of those adjectives are 100% accurate in the context of the discussion. MrOilers has displayed intellectual dishonesty & bigotry with aplomb, repeatedly, in this thread & others.

Your argument, much like yourself, has no teeth.

(See, THAT'S a personal dig. Bit different.)

Its splitting hairs here to coin a phrase.

Calling people names dilutes your brand. Everyone is a brand and there are feelings behind that brand. How one interacts with brands can strengthen bonds between brands (people). We can advance a conversation when a one brand edifies and teaches another. You caught me on a day where I have some time off

I had the Omar Khadr case as strike 3 but after much deliberation cancelled that as a strike. There are other issues that could potentially be a strike 3 such as the fighter planes and the way the Govt handles Veterans and our aboriginal/indigenous people. But those items have been going on longer then JT's administration. I can't really strike him on those.

So, what then would be the ramifications (not that its a world changing event) of 3 strikes on JT? I wont cast a ballot for the Liberals next election or morally support them. I'm sure they won't lose any sleep over it

The Tater Tot 'peoplekind' incident reminds me of the captain of the Costa Concordia when the cruise ship sank. The captain said he tripped and fell into a lifeboat and left the ship and people on it to perish. Lives were lost and that was his excuse for abandoning his ship. A person would have to be a special kind of gullible to believe that.

It's going to get very interesting real fast as the parties will be gearing up for the 2019 elections. Expect a lot of greatly exaggerated announcements from the Trudeau camp. He'll have to be on his best behavior as he's being closely watched. So far his record in office has been more sizzle than steak.

I can't get upset at you because any reply you have is the same boring ****.

Its like reading greetings cards if a serial narcissist hater was writing them. Maybe mix it up a little.

Like I said, if you want me to stop beating the "you're an ignorant bigot" drum you're the one that'll need to change things up. As long as you keep on being the same personal-responsibility-shirking, cranky, old, bigoted white dude I'm gonna keep on pointing it out.

The onus is really on you. I'd be a lot quieter on many topics if the regressives & bigots didn't keep trying to use C2E as a platform to spread their ignorance.

Last edited by noodle; 12-02-2018 at 12:42 PM.
Reason: typo

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

^^ It's clear that the strategy of today's ignorant alt-right bigots is this: anytime someone calls you out on being bigoted, regressive trash, label them as a liberal & try to play the victim card while simultaneously attempt to deflect the focus away from your own hatred & divisive partisan rhetoric.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Getting back on track, I've never been a Liberal supporter. I like some of the things they did like Trudeau in the 1970's "bleeding hearts, helmets and guns, "just watch me." I like what Jean Chrétien did when he removed Greenpeace Canada's charitable tax status. What really soured me on JT was his encounter with Theresa Spence in the Teepee.

And I found it quite ironic how SJW Trudeau was mansplaining to a young women about mankind being a big no no as you know sticks and stones will break my bones but names will send me over the deep end Justin.

Harper governed by catering to his base while throwing the occasional bone to centrists. He stayed in power only due to division on the left as a result of the NDP resurgence and, let's just say, a couple of less than inspiring Liberal leaders. As much criticism as the Liberal cabinet ministers get - and I'm not saying they're perfect by any means - the Harper ministers often operated like the keystone cops. It was also the most mean-spirited government I've seen in my lifetime. Just about everyone who was there before is still there, minus Harper and the others who lost in 2015.

Sorry for the derail. I didn't see this until this morning, and by accident. I moved 23+ comments to the trash folder. They are there for review if anyone wants to try to sue for violating freedom of speech, censorship, etc.

Originally Posted by envaneo

There's that name calling again.

Where are the mods here?

I don't read every thread.

Originally Posted by Medwards

Try using the report post button if you feel something needs mod/admin attention.

Please.

Originally Posted by envaneo

Originally Posted by noodle

Originally Posted by envaneo

There's that name calling again.

Just because the words have negative connotations does not mean the application of them is unwarranted or unfounded.

Originally Posted by envaneo

Where are the mods here?

Hit the little triangular report post button.

Posters imo should learn to Police themselves. Ahem, its called decorum.

Even though this is an open forum I consider it as "respecting the work place"

It's still name calling.

envaneo,

I wish people would police their own actions as well. However, after 15 years, I know they don't, especially in political threads.

So, either I become super strict and stifle all conversation, or others just don't take the flamewar bait.

All,

Can we just get back to a discussion without the vitriol? I know I seem to be asking the impossible, but can we at least try?

And I found it quite ironic how SJW Trudeau was mansplaining to a young women about mankind being a big no no as you know sticks and stones will break my bones but names will send me over the deep end Justin.

Sorry for the derail. I didn't see this until this morning, and by accident. I moved 23+ comments to the trash folder. They are there for review if anyone wants to try to sue for violating freedom of speech, censorship, etc.

Originally Posted by envaneo

There's that name calling again.

Where are the mods here?

I don't read every thread.

Originally Posted by Medwards

Try using the report post button if you feel something needs mod/admin attention.

Please.

Originally Posted by envaneo

Originally Posted by noodle

Originally Posted by envaneo

There's that name calling again.

Just because the words have negative connotations does not mean the application of them is unwarranted or unfounded.

Originally Posted by envaneo

Where are the mods here?

Hit the little triangular report post button.

Posters imo should learn to Police themselves. Ahem, its called decorum.

Even though this is an open forum I consider it as "respecting the work place"

It's still name calling.

envaneo,

I wish people would police their own actions as well. However, after 15 years, I know they don't, especially in political threads.

So, either I become super strict and stifle all conversation, or others just don't take the flamewar bait.

All,

Can we just get back to a discussion without the vitriol? I know I seem to be asking the impossible, but can we at least try?

We have a trash folder? Cool!

Did I lose a post to? I’m highly offended - not.

However as an anonymous poster I can’t really claim that my free speech rights have been dispatched with anyway. On the other hand here on a forum where people are free to participate or not and assume anonymous identities, I really don’t understand why anyone cares one way or the other (even me) because one anonymous poster verbally and childishly attacks another anonymous poster. Why does anyone adopt any emotional response at all? It makes no rational sense, even though I too feel a tad irritated when my comments or the perceptions being created by my comments result in a rude reply. I guess we’re all just highly emotional, irrational animals.

And I found it quite ironic how SJW Trudeau was mansplaining to a young women about mankind being a big no no as you know sticks and stones will break my bones but names will send me over the deep end Justin.

LOL< how true,

I'll have to wade in here. This event was 2 weeks ago but the misinformation and subsequent backlash is mindboggling. And it keeps coming back up on my feeds and forums.

The girl speaking was basically advertising her religion. Now this religion in question is basically a cult, but that's another discussion. She went on for about two/three minutes. Once it became apparent her "question" was just a self-promotion of her religious views, the crowd became impatient and started rolling their eyes. People that were half asleep at this point snapped awake and everyone looked at her on the big screen because what she was saying was so jarring. They started jeering and a low grumblings was beginning to form. Trudeau stopped the jeering and ask her to present her question. She continued on with her presentation of what the world should be as per her religion. And when she started saying "mankind blah blah blah", Trudeau interjected with his "peoplekind" remark. The crowd laughed. He chuckled; she laughed it off and Trudeau took over the floor from there.She had no question. You could tell the crowd was annoyed at her and Trudeau tried to use a joke to carefully stop her from her ramblings.

There was no mansplaining. The problem is the media used a 15 second snippet to twist and suit their agenda.

When in reality, it did not unfold in what you're led to believe. This could probably segue into how social media and the internet has caused our society to basically have 10 second attention spans. This leads to what people want you to conclude and doesn't allow for people to analyze and formulate what exactly happened.

This was the biggest jump to conclusion there was - the argument has been so one-sided from the sheeps who think they have the full picture. And I'm quite ashamed at our less reputable domestic media outlets reinforcing the ADHD 15 second clip; and our more reputable sources staying silent instead of correcting the American and international media outlets.

There was no mansplaining. The problem is the media used a 15 second snippet to twist and suit their agenda.

The media is an @ss, they do this to everyone, not just JT. I spoke to someone that was there, and the way he felt, he was applauding that JT shut the girl up, he was not applauding people kind, and he is sure not everyone heard it correctly anyway..but it's fun to poke fun of JT

[...] I implore some of you to click this link and watch 4 minutes of it [...]

How remarkably realistic and reasonable ... and utterly futile. The multi-IDed, political-card-carrying propagandists of putz-dom here have a never-ending agenda to parrot and parade. So, like, nice try.

And I found it quite ironic how SJW Trudeau was mansplaining to a young women about mankind being a big no no as you know sticks and stones will break my bones but names will send me over the deep end Justin.

LOL< how true,

I'll have to wade in here. This event was 2 weeks ago but the misinformation and subsequent backlash is mindboggling. And it keeps coming back up on my feeds and forums.

The girl speaking was basically advertising her religion. Now this religion in question is basically a cult, but that's another discussion. She went on for about two/three minutes. Once it became apparent her "question" was just a self-promotion of her religious views, the crowd became impatient and started rolling their eyes. People that were half asleep at this point snapped awake and everyone looked at her on the big screen because what she was saying was so jarring. They started jeering and a low grumblings was beginning to form. Trudeau stopped the jeering and ask her to present her question. She continued on with her presentation of what the world should be as per her religion. And when she started saying "mankind blah blah blah", Trudeau interjected with his "peoplekind" remark. The crowd laughed. He chuckled; she laughed it off and Trudeau took over the floor from there.She had no question. You could tell the crowd was annoyed at her and Trudeau tried to use a joke to carefully stop her from her ramblings.

There was no mansplaining. The problem is the media used a 15 second snippet to twist and suit their agenda.

When in reality, it did not unfold in what you're led to believe. This could probably segue into how social media and the internet has caused our society to basically have 10 second attention spans. This leads to what people want you to conclude and doesn't allow for people to analyze and formulate what exactly happened.

This was the biggest jump to conclusion there was - the argument has been so one-sided from the sheeps who think they have the full picture. And I'm quite ashamed at our less reputable domestic media outlets reinforcing the ADHD 15 second clip; and our more reputable sources staying silent instead of correcting the American and international media outlets.

You mean renown international media celebrity Piers Morgan, who went off on his rant about mankind wasn't actually in the room when this happened? I thought credible journalists did more than listen to 10 second clips.

And I found it quite ironic how SJW Trudeau was mansplaining to a young women about mankind being a big no no as you know sticks and stones will break my bones but names will send me over the deep end Justin.

LOL< how true,

I'll have to wade in here. This event was 2 weeks ago but the misinformation and subsequent backlash is mindboggling. And it keeps coming back up on my feeds and forums.

The girl speaking was basically advertising her religion. Now this religion in question is basically a cult, but that's another discussion. She went on for about two/three minutes. Once it became apparent her "question" was just a self-promotion of her religious views, the crowd became impatient and started rolling their eyes. People that were half asleep at this point snapped awake and everyone looked at her on the big screen because what she was saying was so jarring. They started jeering and a low grumblings was beginning to form. Trudeau stopped the jeering and ask her to present her question. She continued on with her presentation of what the world should be as per her religion. And when she started saying "mankind blah blah blah", Trudeau interjected with his "peoplekind" remark. The crowd laughed. He chuckled; she laughed it off and Trudeau took over the floor from there.She had no question. You could tell the crowd was annoyed at her and Trudeau tried to use a joke to carefully stop her from her ramblings.

There was no mansplaining. The problem is the media used a 15 second snippet to twist and suit their agenda.

When in reality, it did not unfold in what you're led to believe. This could probably segue into how social media and the internet has caused our society to basically have 10 second attention spans. This leads to what people want you to conclude and doesn't allow for people to analyze and formulate what exactly happened.

This was the biggest jump to conclusion there was - the argument has been so one-sided from the sheeps who think they have the full picture. And I'm quite ashamed at our less reputable domestic media outlets reinforcing the ADHD 15 second clip; and our more reputable sources staying silent instead of correcting the American and international media outlets.

I don't see how in this case it's relevant what the girl said before. Sure she might have been rambling but Tater could have stopped her at any point. He could have told her he respected her religion, her thoughts and thrown in one of his answers that's not really and answer. He stops her at 'mankind' and comes out with 'peoplekind'. Saying 'we like to say peoplekind'. Who likes to say that?. Who has said that?. He did. Of course the media was going to run with it because it was a silly thing to say.

And I found it quite ironic how SJW Trudeau was mansplaining to a young women about mankind being a big no no as you know sticks and stones will break my bones but names will send me over the deep end Justin.

LOL< how true,

I'll have to wade in here. This event was 2 weeks ago but the misinformation and subsequent backlash is mindboggling. And it keeps coming back up on my feeds and forums.

The girl speaking was basically advertising her religion. Now this religion in question is basically a cult, but that's another discussion. She went on for about two/three minutes. Once it became apparent her "question" was just a self-promotion of her religious views, the crowd became impatient and started rolling their eyes. People that were half asleep at this point snapped awake and everyone looked at her on the big screen because what she was saying was so jarring. They started jeering and a low grumblings was beginning to form. Trudeau stopped the jeering and ask her to present her question. She continued on with her presentation of what the world should be as per her religion. And when she started saying "mankind blah blah blah", Trudeau interjected with his "peoplekind" remark. The crowd laughed. He chuckled; she laughed it off and Trudeau took over the floor from there.She had no question. You could tell the crowd was annoyed at her and Trudeau tried to use a joke to carefully stop her from her ramblings.

There was no mansplaining. The problem is the media used a 15 second snippet to twist and suit their agenda.

When in reality, it did not unfold in what you're led to believe. This could probably segue into how social media and the internet has caused our society to basically have 10 second attention spans. This leads to what people want you to conclude and doesn't allow for people to analyze and formulate what exactly happened.

This was the biggest jump to conclusion there was - the argument has been so one-sided from the sheeps who think they have the full picture. And I'm quite ashamed at our less reputable domestic media outlets reinforcing the ADHD 15 second clip; and our more reputable sources staying silent instead of correcting the American and international media outlets.

You mean renown international media celebrity Piers Morgan, who went off on his rant about mankind wasn't actually in the room when this happened? I thought credible journalists did more than listen to 10 second clips.

The UK, Australia.. It went viral, and JT looked every bit the maroon he is..lol.

I think everyone in Canada needs to be concerned about the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister taking sides in this case. The jury and judge ruling's in this instance ruled in favor of the interpretation of events based on defense of self and family instead of one based on race.

It's not the job of the Prime Minister and Justice Minster to insert themselves into the court case and shame the outcome.

Its interesting that any commentary by Conservatives on the legal process is BLASTED by Liberals and NDP and yet they're hogs up to the trough with criticism of how this Bouchie case was handled and they are even inflaming further hostility and reactivity with their overzealous responses.

Yes, an individual that was drunk out of his head with all 5 drunk out of their heads and who had been on a vehicle theft spree and even managed to wreck the tires of the vehicle they were driving through hitting the ditch repeatedly had one of them accidentally shot on somebodies property while the party was engaged in the actions of further vehicle theft. While being intoxicated to the extent of their actions being entirely unpredictable.

No race, creed, anything is required in this case to consider what went on, the fear and uncertainty that was induced, and the extent of actions that involved shooting warning shots which was obviously in response to fear and the perception of considerable risk.

Again race is not required as an explanation of what occurred here. Any group of out of control individuals going to a farm, trespassing, and visibly stealing vehicles in plain sight and daylight while under the obvious influence of drugs or alcohol would induce fear. Nor does it resemble in any way something that would constitute normal, expectable, or acceptable behavior. The whole lot of them could easily have been killed just through their drunk driving actions that day or killing innocents.

I would even tend to think that a death in this instance has more to do with "death by misadventure" than the "this country is racist" claims we are hearing in front pages ever since. With our Prime Minister and NDP only too willing to support such notions that this is racist motivated.

I should be disgusted in political parties using this tragic death to further their own designs and trying to use it for partisan political score points. I would be disgusted but I'm not at all surprised.

Last edited by Replacement; 14-02-2018 at 11:52 AM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

I think one of the issues in the Colten Boushie case is that First Nations People did not believe they were being represented on the jury. There were no FNP on the jury. They are saying that the law allowed Stanley's lawyer to use peremptory challenges to select an all white jury. This is what happens in jury selection, lawyers can reject choices made by the other parties. If the jury had of consisted of some FN jurors the not guilty plea may have been accepted as FNP would have know that they were been fairly represented. I think that is why Trudeau is sticking his oar in even though I think he should not comment. These types of changes in jury selection should be left to the judiciary to hammer out. If changes need to be made let the court system make them.

I think everyone in Canada needs to be concerned about the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister taking sides in this case. The jury and judge ruling's in this instance ruled in favor of the interpretation of events based on defense of self and family instead of one based on race.

It's not the job of the Prime Minister and Justice Minster to insert themselves into the court case and shame the outcome.

I think it is more complicated than that. The current ongoing MMIW inquiry is in response to concerns families haven't been treated fairly or taken as seriously as they should be by the justice system. In the recent Saskatchewan case, there were also concerns by the family about how things were handled by the police. As well, a former Justice of the Supreme Court has previously pointed out a problem with under representation of Indigenous people on juries. I wouldn't say the outcome of this trial was wrong, nor did anyone in the government, but it did bring these concerns to everyone's attention.

However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process, according to one prospective juror who spoke to the Sun.

...

Media reports state that 700 people received jury duty notice for the case, and of that, only about 200 showed up that Monday morning.

Sorry for the derail. I didn't see this until this morning, and by accident. I moved 23+ comments to the trash folder. They are there for review if anyone wants to try to sue for violating freedom of speech, censorship, etc.

Originally Posted by envaneo

There's that name calling again.

Where are the mods here?

I don't read every thread.

Originally Posted by Medwards

Try using the report post button if you feel something needs mod/admin attention.

Please.

Originally Posted by envaneo

Originally Posted by noodle

Originally Posted by envaneo

There's that name calling again.

Just because the words have negative connotations does not mean the application of them is unwarranted or unfounded.

Originally Posted by envaneo

Where are the mods here?

Hit the little triangular report post button.

Posters imo should learn to Police themselves. Ahem, its called decorum.

Even though this is an open forum I consider it as "respecting the work place"

It's still name calling.

envaneo,

I wish people would police their own actions as well. However, after 15 years, I know they don't, especially in political threads.

So, either I become super strict and stifle all conversation, or others just don't take the flamewar bait.

All,

Can we just get back to a discussion without the vitriol? I know I seem to be asking the impossible, but can we at least try?

I think imo if in the Boushie case Jury was even split between white and non white and the results were the same, the Boushie family might have accepted the verdict better. That's the root cause of the case, the jury was biased. Not necessarily on a individual basis but on the Jury selection process. If 700 letters went out for Jury duty request, how many of those went out to indigenous people? I feel bad for the Boushie family.

I think imo if in the Boushie case Jury was even split between white and non white and the results were the same, the Boushie family might have accepted the verdict better. That's the root cause of the case, the jury was biased. Not necessarily on a individual basis but on the Jury selection process. If 700 letters went out for Jury duty request, how many of those went out to indigenous people? I feel bad for the Boushie family.

That's one way to look at it. The other is unfortunate, and its a huge part of the problem as well, is that multivariate bias exists. Including first Nations engaging in reverse discriminatory bias. I'm also a bit confused. On one hand First Nations peoples are saying our legal system is biased, discriminatory, that it is colonialist and imperialist and on the other hand are saying they want at the table that is these things..

The forum for discussion is maybe more constitutional in nature. Or Outside the court process itself. Engaging in a court process that is inherently Colonial in nature is not necessarily going to change that court process and its a whole other discussion. I'm concerned the national discussion is not separated out. meaningful change will not come from political points it will come from furthering justice even if people do not necessarily like the result of that justice.

The selection of jury involves the option to weed out potential jurors that exhibit obvious preconcieved bias. More than just race, color, creed goes into this as a persons opinion on the matter is also at stake. Its not like they just take one glance at potential jurors and disqualify them. (albeit it arguably occurs) Connected is that if a potential juror is not able to be an arbiter of non biased assessment of the trial they are not fit to be jurors of that trail. Tons of reactions of "Canada is bigoted, Canada is racist", and these views being so widely shared by a population that feels victimized (whether justified or not, that's not what I'm stating) also serves to disqualify individuals on the basis of potentially being too passionate and precontemplative in the subject area. Similarly if they found say half a dozen potential jurors who were SJW they probably wouldn't be selected either. The Defense and the Crown can both refuse potential jurors.

The best jurors are not individuals who's mind is already made up about the trial before they've heard one bit of evidence.

Finally, probably what would occur had their been First Nations jurors is increased possibility of a hung jury, prolonged difficulty coming to a decision, and possibly mistrial. That maybe even being a goal but which doesn't aid justice any further.

Last edited by Replacement; 14-02-2018 at 06:33 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Your post and last sentence makes sense because even if a 50-50 split, there would still be a bias within the jury as well. That bias like you said could cause a mistrial and would favour the defendant. At least this way this outcome opens up the opportunity for the family to launch an appeal. Thanks.

Jury pools are picked randomly from voting registries and driver licence data bases in the area of the court proceedings. If there are fewer FNP on these list then by the law of averages the less of them are going to be picked for jury duty. Maybe 100 (in less populated areas) called for jury duty then out of them only 12 needed. If you are called for jury duty you are required to go unless you have a very good reason not to. If you go through jury selection and then selected to serve you are expected to serve. If you are selected but feel you cannot/should not sit on a jury then you have to have a good reason not to. If you are hard of hearing you have to have proof, have A.D.D you have to have proof, any number of illness's that you think may stop you from sitting on a jury all have to be proven. In some medical instances some people will be exempted in others they will not. If FNP want to be included in the jury process for any and all trials maybe the jury selection offices should have access to data bases with only a list of all FNP within the jurisdiction of the trial. That way they can go through the process of serving on a jury like everyone else.

This article really seems to confirm some of my points from above, thanks for linking it. Would be interesting to see if we get any substantiation of what the prospective juror witness stated. Officials can't really comment, and this is really politically charged, but its interesting, and expected, that the impassioned and upset behavior would likely not make for ideal prospective jurors. This being a point that can't be understood enough. Yet again why I am concerned that Fed Libs and NDP jumped to conclusions assuming about any potential First Nations jurors that were not selected. This is where I think they fed right into misinformation and flamed the fires.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

In Alberta, the province’s motor vehicle registry database is used to randomly select individuals to go into a jury pool. That database includes people with a driver’s licence, a provincial ID card or a disabled parking placard and covers 95 to 98 per cent of the province’s adult population, according to the Ministry of Justice.
Every year, each court jurisdiction generates a new pool of potential jurors from a designated area around the courthouse. In Edmonton, the annual pool is made up of 100,000 people selected from postal codes within 20 km of the downtown courthouse.
In 2010, an Indigenous man attempted a constitutional challenge because no one from the Enoch Cree Nation was eligible to serve on his jury because the reserve’s post office was more than 20 km from downtown Edmonton. His application was rejected, although the charges were later stayed. The province says the postal code for Enoch Cree Nation is now included in the Edmonton pool.
In the 2016-2017 fiscal year, 65 of the 543 criminal trials concluded in Court of Queen’s Bench were tried by a jury.

It might be very interesting to learn the facts behind Atwal’s involvement and why an MP that very likely knew his background would recommend any association with the guy.

No matter what, it’s a great example of immigration that carries with it a legacy of beliefs and values that can potentially conflict with the beliefs and values of the adopted nation.

Additionally, my MP has never recommended I be put on any official Prime Ministerial foreign get together list. Maybe I just need to call up and ask where the PM is going next and I can say I’ll meet him there and would love to have a fancy diner with him. Nothing to it I guess.

“Dosanjh calls the situation “dangerous and pervasive,” citing how politicians of all stripes continue to mix with radicals and attend Khalsa Day events alongside people who hold up pictures of the Air India bombing mastermind as if he was a hero.”

“Dosanjh calls the situation “dangerous and pervasive,” citing how politicians of all stripes continue to mix with radicals and attend Khalsa Day events alongside people who hold up pictures of the Air India bombing mastermind as if he was a hero.”